Scholarlink

<p>Previous studies have noted a general decline in the use of the passive voice (PV) in academic research articles across disciplines. Few, however, have focused specifically on the PV-laden Methods or Methodology sections, particularly across the three main academic branches, let alone identified which functional categories of PV contribute to this trend. This study therefore investigates the evolution of PV use in academic writing across the three branches—humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences—from 1980 to 2020. We analyzed the PV in the Method(s)/methodology sections of 450 SSCI/SCI-indexed research articles using Spearman correlations and multivariate regression analysis. We also functionally classified PV into five categories: procedural, reporting, relational, causative, and evaluative. Results revealed significant disciplinary divergence: social sciences exhibited the steepest PV decline, driven by reductions in procedural and causative passives, while humanities showed strong but non-significant decreases, primarily linked to causative passives. Natural sciences demonstrated post-2000 stabilization, with relational passives balancing stylistic shifts and methodological needs. These findings underscored discipline-specific recalibrations: humanities and social sciences aligned with Plain English norms favoring active voice, while natural sciences retained relational passives for cross-study comparability. Accordingly, we proposed three strategies: (1) adhering to journal-specific style guides, (2) implementing discipline-sensitive pedagogy, (3) using authentic case studies to illustrate PV/AV trade-offs.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A corpus-based study of passive voice trajectories in methods sections across three academic branches (1980–2020)

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月21日

查看全文
  • Rurong Le,
  • Sheng Yu,
  • Mingxing Hao

摘要

Previous studies have noted a general decline in the use of the passive voice (PV) in academic research articles across disciplines. Few, however, have focused specifically on the PV-laden Methods or Methodology sections, particularly across the three main academic branches, let alone identified which functional categories of PV contribute to this trend. This study therefore investigates the evolution of PV use in academic writing across the three branches—humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences—from 1980 to 2020. We analyzed the PV in the Method(s)/methodology sections of 450 SSCI/SCI-indexed research articles using Spearman correlations and multivariate regression analysis. We also functionally classified PV into five categories: procedural, reporting, relational, causative, and evaluative. Results revealed significant disciplinary divergence: social sciences exhibited the steepest PV decline, driven by reductions in procedural and causative passives, while humanities showed strong but non-significant decreases, primarily linked to causative passives. Natural sciences demonstrated post-2000 stabilization, with relational passives balancing stylistic shifts and methodological needs. These findings underscored discipline-specific recalibrations: humanities and social sciences aligned with Plain English norms favoring active voice, while natural sciences retained relational passives for cross-study comparability. Accordingly, we proposed three strategies: (1) adhering to journal-specific style guides, (2) implementing discipline-sensitive pedagogy, (3) using authentic case studies to illustrate PV/AV trade-offs.